Q. Are you familiar with Michael S. A. Graziano's work on
theories related to the biology of consciousness ?
G. As readers of this blog know, my view on (C)consciousness is that it is an all-pervasive, universal field, that constitutes "everything". The Higgs field, which has been demonstrated, is an all-pervasive, universal field which gives every particle its mass as it "swims through this field".
The blogpost "How "consciousness" creates matter...the God particle" discusses this in detail and includes a scientist's discussion on how consciousness might arise from an all pervasive field. The blogpost "Do your mystical experiences fit w/quantum physics? neuroscience?" gives other scientists’ discussion of a model for the all-pervasive field being "conscious".
This model for Consciousness is the basis of the beliefs of hundreds of millions of folk, which doesn't make it right, of course, only popular.
There is, however, a new and controversial model (which i do not subscribe to) of how matter produces consciousness from Michael Graziano @ Princeton.
Michael's concept is called the "attention schema" theory, which he says explains how and for what evolutionarily-adaptive advantage, brains attribute the property of awareness to themselves. There is a short youTube video "Michael Graziano on a new theory of consciousness" that gives an overview.
Basically, Graziano believes that consciousness emerges from the parts of the brain, particularly the temporoparietal junction (TPJ) and the superior temporal sulcus (SLS) on both sides of the brain, but most strongly on the right side of the brain, and other parts including mirror neurons that are associated with "Theory of Mind" (ToM) or our evolved ability to try to guess the internal mental states of others. we developed this capability as we have no way to really know what the other person's mind is doing.
As we are such massively-social animals, large portions of neural real estate are dedicated to our attempts to attribute our beliefs, intents, desires, intentions, pretending, knowledge, etc. to ourselves and to others. ToM is often taken as a "higher primate" capability alone, and hence carries w/it the sense of our being a uniquely superior species.
The problem with ToM is its fundamental assumption that others' minds are just like our minds. This implies that we are all running not just the same operating system, but also the same programs for the same applications in the same environments.
ToM also changes with prior experience, social and otherwise. ToM may work less well if we have autism spectrum disorders, schizophrenia, ADHD, and neurotoxicity from alcohol abuse. That would mean that their "consciousness" would change as well w/the "attention schema" model.
As the video dialogue "Guessing Others' Minds Through Mirrors" discusses, this can be a woefully incorrect assumption. If folk have another culture, another language, different religion and philosophy, and different age and gender, there is little chance that you could guess correctly what they were thinking. As i have virtually no internal narrative, it is unlikely your could guess what i was(n't) thinking.
The "attention schema" arose from observations of what happened to ToM capability when the TPJ and STS were damaged; these folk suffered a catastrophic disruption of their own awareness of events and objects around them. Hemispatial neglect, or loss of awareness of one side of space was particularly profound after damage to the TPJ or STS in the right hemisphere.
This led Graziano to conclude that consciousness is a computed feature constructed by an expert system in the brain. Consciousness arises because we attribute it to others in social situations/perceptions. It is then "back" attributed to oneself, in his view, creating one’s own consciousness.
Graziano posits that our brains "decide they have awareness (consciousness)" and that "Because we can attribute this very basic property of awareness (consciousness) to others, we must have some circuitry that helps us make that attribution."
IMHO, here are some issues w/the "attention schema":
1. Despite the claim, this is no solution to The Hard Problem - how does consciousness arise from our material neurons to create these sensations of color, taste, etc.? Graziano posits that "we must have some circuitry that helps us make that attribution". This is equivalent to the old physics joke of assuming a spherical chicken so we can do the calculation.
2. As the "attention schema" relies upon ToM as its basis, our "consciousness" must vary throughout our lives, and throughout our learning about others, and even in the course of a day as we perceive different stimuli w/different intensities.
3. As the "attention schema" applies to perceptions of other people, what happens with the other things we perceive, like rocks, trees, and oceans if they aren't also "conscious", if we derive our consciousness from back-attributing our perceptions? If we had never seen another person, would we have remained unconscious?
4. What happens when we don't have any perceptions? Are we unconscious then? When someone goes into a sensory-deprivation, flotation tank, they should become unconscious. That is not what happens...in fact consciousness/awareness is there even w/o external stimuli or perceptions, and importantly, it is of the same quality and clarity.
5. my awareness/consciousness does not change, whether sleeping, eating breakfast, walking in nature or writing, etc. The content of consciousness may change, but the consciousness/awareness within which it manifests doesn't change.
In listening to music, it is axiomatic that it is about the pauses (John Cage and Miles Davis), not about the perceived notes. If we were unconscious between the perceptions, the notes would not be notes.
6. The "mirror test" is the "Gold Standard" of self-awareness. It has been passed by humans (after 18 mos), bonobos, chimpanzees, orangutans, bottlenosed dolphins, killer whales, Asian elephants, and magpies. How does that fit into the "attention schema" model, particularly in the case of magpies, which have no neocortex, supposedly where "consciousness" originates?
Some "materialists" have objected to the premise that a Universal field could be conscious, as the field is basically "material" and so it would be subject to the same "Hard Problem" of how material produces consciousness. However they miss the point. If Consciousness is universal and fundamental as Andrei Linde suggests, it manifests all material, matter and energy, so there is no Hard Problem (except for the materialists).
The Higgs field may not be that Universal field of consciousness but only a proximate manifestation. However, it clearly demonstrates a universal, inter-penetrating field with the ability to create and confer mass on particles. It may be the "tail of the lion", as Albert Einstein said "Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I do not doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal himself because of his enormous size."
Bottom line...i continue to find the model that Consciousness is primary and a Universal field that penetrates everything to be a more compelling and scientifically-supportable approach...plus it matches what i experience.
BTW, i will be presenting "Disentangling your outdated mental operating system" @ the upcoming Science and NonDuality Conference in San Jose, CA on Oct. 25.
BTW2, Rich Doyle and i will presenting a series of webinars on awakening beyond thought as a follow-on to our many youTube video dialogues w/the title "Who would you be without your stories, your "blah, blah, blah"? The Simple Strength of Stillness" starting Oct. 5. More details will be forthcoming.
G. As readers of this blog know, my view on (C)consciousness is that it is an all-pervasive, universal field, that constitutes "everything". The Higgs field, which has been demonstrated, is an all-pervasive, universal field which gives every particle its mass as it "swims through this field".
The blogpost "How "consciousness" creates matter...the God particle" discusses this in detail and includes a scientist's discussion on how consciousness might arise from an all pervasive field. The blogpost "Do your mystical experiences fit w/quantum physics? neuroscience?" gives other scientists’ discussion of a model for the all-pervasive field being "conscious".
 |
| Andrei Linde Stanford |
The blogpost "Consciousness over matter? What gravitational waves show..." discusses the recent breakthrough work on
gravitational waves. The co-conceiver of this work, Andrei Linde, a likely Nobel nominee, states
that "We think about consciousness as something that describes matter, but
could it be that consciousness...will be elevated and will include matter as
its part?"
This model for Consciousness is the basis of the beliefs of hundreds of millions of folk, which doesn't make it right, of course, only popular.
 |
| Michael Graziano Princeton |
There is, however, a new and controversial model (which i do not subscribe to) of how matter produces consciousness from Michael Graziano @ Princeton.
Michael's concept is called the "attention schema" theory, which he says explains how and for what evolutionarily-adaptive advantage, brains attribute the property of awareness to themselves. There is a short youTube video "Michael Graziano on a new theory of consciousness" that gives an overview.
Basically, Graziano believes that consciousness emerges from the parts of the brain, particularly the temporoparietal junction (TPJ) and the superior temporal sulcus (SLS) on both sides of the brain, but most strongly on the right side of the brain, and other parts including mirror neurons that are associated with "Theory of Mind" (ToM) or our evolved ability to try to guess the internal mental states of others. we developed this capability as we have no way to really know what the other person's mind is doing.
As we are such massively-social animals, large portions of neural real estate are dedicated to our attempts to attribute our beliefs, intents, desires, intentions, pretending, knowledge, etc. to ourselves and to others. ToM is often taken as a "higher primate" capability alone, and hence carries w/it the sense of our being a uniquely superior species.
 |
| Mirror neurons (MNS) and source of visual input |
The problem with ToM is its fundamental assumption that others' minds are just like our minds. This implies that we are all running not just the same operating system, but also the same programs for the same applications in the same environments.
ToM also changes with prior experience, social and otherwise. ToM may work less well if we have autism spectrum disorders, schizophrenia, ADHD, and neurotoxicity from alcohol abuse. That would mean that their "consciousness" would change as well w/the "attention schema" model.
As the video dialogue "Guessing Others' Minds Through Mirrors" discusses, this can be a woefully incorrect assumption. If folk have another culture, another language, different religion and philosophy, and different age and gender, there is little chance that you could guess correctly what they were thinking. As i have virtually no internal narrative, it is unlikely your could guess what i was(n't) thinking. The "attention schema" arose from observations of what happened to ToM capability when the TPJ and STS were damaged; these folk suffered a catastrophic disruption of their own awareness of events and objects around them. Hemispatial neglect, or loss of awareness of one side of space was particularly profound after damage to the TPJ or STS in the right hemisphere.
 |
| Theory of Mind @ work |
This led Graziano to conclude that consciousness is a computed feature constructed by an expert system in the brain. Consciousness arises because we attribute it to others in social situations/perceptions. It is then "back" attributed to oneself, in his view, creating one’s own consciousness.
Graziano posits that our brains "decide they have awareness (consciousness)" and that "Because we can attribute this very basic property of awareness (consciousness) to others, we must have some circuitry that helps us make that attribution."
IMHO, here are some issues w/the "attention schema":
 |
| Spherical chicken (almost) |
2. As the "attention schema" relies upon ToM as its basis, our "consciousness" must vary throughout our lives, and throughout our learning about others, and even in the course of a day as we perceive different stimuli w/different intensities.
3. As the "attention schema" applies to perceptions of other people, what happens with the other things we perceive, like rocks, trees, and oceans if they aren't also "conscious", if we derive our consciousness from back-attributing our perceptions? If we had never seen another person, would we have remained unconscious?
 |
| Sensory deprivation tank (w/lights on) |
5. my awareness/consciousness does not change, whether sleeping, eating breakfast, walking in nature or writing, etc. The content of consciousness may change, but the consciousness/awareness within which it manifests doesn't change.
In listening to music, it is axiomatic that it is about the pauses (John Cage and Miles Davis), not about the perceived notes. If we were unconscious between the perceptions, the notes would not be notes.
 |
| Magpie Passed mirror test |
 |
| Young primate taking mirror test |
6. The "mirror test" is the "Gold Standard" of self-awareness. It has been passed by humans (after 18 mos), bonobos, chimpanzees, orangutans, bottlenosed dolphins, killer whales, Asian elephants, and magpies. How does that fit into the "attention schema" model, particularly in the case of magpies, which have no neocortex, supposedly where "consciousness" originates?
Some "materialists" have objected to the premise that a Universal field could be conscious, as the field is basically "material" and so it would be subject to the same "Hard Problem" of how material produces consciousness. However they miss the point. If Consciousness is universal and fundamental as Andrei Linde suggests, it manifests all material, matter and energy, so there is no Hard Problem (except for the materialists).
The Higgs field may not be that Universal field of consciousness but only a proximate manifestation. However, it clearly demonstrates a universal, inter-penetrating field with the ability to create and confer mass on particles. It may be the "tail of the lion", as Albert Einstein said "Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I do not doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal himself because of his enormous size."
Bottom line...i continue to find the model that Consciousness is primary and a Universal field that penetrates everything to be a more compelling and scientifically-supportable approach...plus it matches what i experience.
BTW, i will be presenting "Disentangling your outdated mental operating system" @ the upcoming Science and NonDuality Conference in San Jose, CA on Oct. 25.
BTW2, Rich Doyle and i will presenting a series of webinars on awakening beyond thought as a follow-on to our many youTube video dialogues w/the title "Who would you be without your stories, your "blah, blah, blah"? The Simple Strength of Stillness" starting Oct. 5. More details will be forthcoming.
No comments:
Post a Comment